Advertisement

The Composite Species Concept: A Rigorous Basis for Cladistic Practice

  • D. J. Kornet
  • James W. McAllister
Chapter
  • 372 Downloads

Abstract

As previous work has shown, the genealogical network can be partitioned exhaustively into internodons, mutually exclusive and historically continuous entities delimited between two successive permanent splits or between a permanent split and an extinction. Internodons are not suitable candidates for the status of species, because of their short life span and the difficulty of recognizing their boundaries. However, internodons may be suitable building blocks for a viable species concept. We introduce the concept of composite species as a sequence of internodons, by qualifying only some permanent splits in the genealogical network as speciation events. The permanent splits that count as speciation events on our account are those associated with a character state fixation: this proposal ensures the recognizability of composite species. Lastly, we show how actual taxonomic practice is able to recover the phylogenetic tree of composite species from standard morphological data.

Keywords

Species concepts genealogical network internodons character state fixation speciation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cracraft, J. (1974). Phylogenetic models and classifications. Systematic Zoology 23: 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cracraft, J. (1983). Species concepts and speciation analysis. Reprinted in Ereshefsky, 1992, pp. 93–120.Google Scholar
  3. Cracraft, J. (1989). Speciation and Its Ontology: The Empirical Consequences of Alternative Species Concepts for Understanding Patterns and Processes of Differentiation. In: Otte, D. and J. A. Endler (Eds). Speciation and Its Consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass. pp. 28–59.Google Scholar
  4. de Queiroz, K. and M. J. Donoghue (1988). Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics 4: 317–338.Google Scholar
  5. de Queiroz, K. and M. J. Donoghue (1990). Phylogenetic systematics or Nelson's version of cladistics? Cladistics 6: 61–75.Google Scholar
  6. Dobzhansky, T. (1970). Genetics of the Evolutionary Process. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Eldredge, N. and J. Cracraft (1980). Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process: Method and Theory in Comparative Biology. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Ereshefsky, M. (1991). Species, higher taxa, and the units of evolution. Reprinted in Ereshefsky, 1992, pp. 381–398.Google Scholar
  9. Ereshefsky, M. (Ed.) (1992). The Units of Evolution: Essays on the Nature of Species. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  10. Hennig, W. (1966). Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
  11. Hull, D. L. (1976). Are species really individuals? Systematic Zoology 25: 174–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hull, D. L. (1979). The limits of cladism. Systematic Zoology 28: 416–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kornet, D. J. (1993). Permanent splits as speciation events: a formal reconstruction of the internodal species concept. Journal of Theoretical Biology 164: 407–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kornet, D. J., J. A. J. Metz, and H. A. J. M. Schellinx (1995). Internodons as equivalence classes in genealogical networks: building-blocks for a rigorous species concept. Journal of Mathematical Biology 34: 110–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mayr, E. (1942). Systematics and the Origin of Species. Dover, New York (reprinted 1964).Google Scholar
  16. Mayr, E. (1957). Species Concepts and Definitions. In: Mayr, E. (Ed.). The Species Problem. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C. pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
  17. Nelson, G. (1989). Cladistics and evolutionary models. Cladistics 5: 275–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nelson, G. and N. I. Platnick (1981). Systematics and Biogeography. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Nixon, K. C. and Q. D. Wheeler (1990). An amplification of the phylogenetic species concept. Cladistics 6: 211–223.Google Scholar
  20. Ridley, M. (1989). The cladistic solution to the species problem. Biology and Philosophy 4: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rosen, D. E. (1979). Fishes from the uplands and intermontane basins of Guatemala: revisionary studies and comparative geography. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 162: 267–376.Google Scholar
  22. Simpson, G. G. (1961). Principles of Animal Taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York (reprinted 1990).Google Scholar
  23. Swofford, D. L. (1991). PAUP: Phylogenetic Analysis using Parsimony. Computer program distributed by the Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois.Google Scholar
  24. Wiley, E. O. (1981). Phylogenetics: The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Zandee, M. (1991). CAFCA, version 1.3c for Macintosh. User's manual distributed by the author. Institute of Theoretical Biology, Leiden.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. J. Kornet
    • 1
  • James W. McAllister
    • 2
  1. 1.Philosophy of the Life Sciences GroupUniversity of LeidenLeiden
  2. 2.Faculty of PhilosophyUniversity of LeidenLeiden

Personalised recommendations